Palin pipes up on pipeline

Alaska Dispatch ^ | Mar 17, 2009 | Tony Hopfinger

[curth]

Gov. Sarah Palin isn't giving in to Reps. Craig Johnson and Jay Ramras, and she certainly isn't conceding defeat to bestselling author Joe McGinniss, who penned a damning article for Condé Nast Portfolio on her efforts to land a natural-gas pipeline.

Palin issued a statement Tuesday in response to Johnson and Ramras' suggestion that her administration should now review the controversial $500 million in state subsidies that have been granted to TransCanada Corp. in exchange for it pursuing pipeline construction. (Read here for the background on the TransCanada deal.)

"I agree with the premise, but I don't believe this resolution is necessary," Palin said in her statement.

There was no mention of McGinniss in Palin's remarks, but as we first reported Monday, the governor's flack isn't happy with the author's critical article on Palin, which came out Wednesday and accuses her of being "the biggest obstacle" to landing the long-sought gas line for Alaska.

Meantime, in an exclusive column for Alaska Dispatch, Rep. Les Gara, an Anchorage Democrat, came out in defense of Palin's pipeline efforts Wednesday.

[SolidWood]

Anyone on or off the Palin ping, write me.

[gr8eman]

This article reads like it was translated from a different language using a free translation program...pathetic.

[Cringing Negativism Network]

How so?

[euram]

Gov. Palin is holding a press conference today dealing with the pipeline.

[Eska]

In Alaska, all politicals are bought and paid for by oil & gas industry, regardless of party; including Palin who I support as being the most honest gov we have had yet.

Poll after poll and referendums indicate Alaskans prefer an all Alaska gas pipeline that will avoid Canada, go to Valdez and benefit Ak with spur lines to Anch & Fairbanks. Yet politicals never follow this path, corruption is why.

You also have every repub out there going after Palin everyway they can; they hate her, always have; she put a bunch of them away over the last few years.

[thackney]

Poll after poll and referendums indicate Alaskans prefer an all Alaska gas pipeline that will avoid Canada, go to Valdez and benefit Ak with spur lines to Anch & Fairbanks.

Popularity by those uninformed about the economics of LNG doesn't justify the gas to liquid and back to gas conversion, not to mention the lack of LNG import terminals on the West Coast and their unwillingness to build them.

The all Alaska claim is B.S. It is just a sales pitch to misrepresent a system that will cost more transport, lower the value of the gas leaving Alaska and include Mexico as part of the path to bring the gas to market.

[thackney]

I forgot to mention the supr lines to Anchorage and Fairbanks have the same economics from the gas Pipeline connecting in Alberta as Valdez.

The Spur lines are only another distraction as they are the same in both cases.

[Political Junkie Too]

Palin pipes up on pipeline

What a disrespectful headline. I'd expect the term "pipe up" to be applied to somebody like Limbaugh, but not the governor of a state.

She has a legitimate voice to be heard regarding the business of Alaska. To me, "pipe up" connotes someone whose opinion wasn't welcome, but spoke anyway.

-PJ

[Eska]

Your probably right about the economics of an Ak gasline, but I'd still rather see a line built thru Alaska than promises about a line thru Canada. I figure more gas will comme online from lower 48 with time; making Ak gas uneconomical also. I guess many Alaskans would rather see lower utility bills than profits; maybe end up being more in the end.

We pay 70 cents/KWH & $5.50/gal for fuel oil here in Eagle(and she ain't comin down); maybe why I think about that gasline the way I do. Last few nights still been minus 40 at daybreak; send some nice warm weather up this way will ya.

[thackney]

What I see that benefits the line through Canada is all the existing massive pipeline connections to New York all the way across to California.

Combine that existing infrastructure with a declining Canadian Natural Gas Production and an increasings Canadian Natural Gas Demand.

The existing pipelines are beginning to fall below capacity and are predicted to continue to fall.

I think using that infrastructure is far more likely than believing California and Washington are going to build LNG import terminals.

Also, an Alaskan LNG export terminal would have to compete with Sakhalin and Australia sources already farther along.

People may not like the idea of "depending" on Canada. But LNG depends on even more and is more expensive with more competition. LNG is even less "All Alaskan" than the TransCanada plan. Unless Alaska build an infrastructure that uses 4.5 billion cubic feet per day, you are going to depend on others to buy and move your product. The best way to make that happen is choose the least costly option to the largest market.